Global Warming Can Be Stopped, World Climate Experts Say
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
No wonder Bush won't have any of this rhetoric...
"But in order to stabilize the climate, the transition from fossil fuels like coal and oil needs to occur within decades, according to the final report this year from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070504-global-warming.html
.
"But in order to stabilize the climate, the transition from fossil fuels like coal and oil needs to occur within decades, according to the final report this year from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070504-global-warming.html
.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
1. those changes HAVE been explained if you happen to decide to read up on it ...
2. you've been posting the same thing for years - if you really care about the environment as you say you do - read up on the subject ...
Why don't you give me the condensed version.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Whaoh...wait a minute. Are you telling me that human beings have the ability to do the opposite today of what they did yesterday???? Holy crap, what a breakthrough. Thank god we have climate experts!!!
Lisa: Now next week is our "state of the city" address. Has everyone finished their proposals?
Comic Book Guy: Well first of all I've a plan to eliminate obesity in women.
Lyndsey Nagle: Oh please, for a nickel-a-person tax increase we could build a theatre for shadow puppets.
Dr. Hibbert: Balinese or Thai?
Lyndsey Nagle: Why not both, then everybody's happy.
Comic Book Guy: Oh yeah, everyone's real happy then.
Lyndsey Nagle: Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Professor Frink: (With sarcasm detector) Are you kidding? This baby is off he charts mm-hai.
Comic Book Guy: A sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention.
(Sarcasm detector explodes)
exactly ...
read the weather makers by tim flannery if you really want to know ... but that's up to you ...
So you can't give a fairly succinct answer to how the climate varied widely before fossil fuels were being burned yet we can now stop that variation by halting the use of fossil fuels?
Not surprising....
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
uhhh ... no, we've been giving you answers for years - you just choose not to believe it and regurgitate the same thing ...
again - if you truly care about the environment like you profess to - you will educate yourself on the subject ... i'm tired of typing out long explanations with links only for the same people to ignore and then type out the same thing again when this topic comes up ...
Thanks for the help.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Burning fossil fuels has added CO2 to the atmosphere and the preponderance of measurements support such.
That CO2 has the potential, exclusive of other variables, to trap heat, this is relatively simple physics. Even if CO2 does not contribute to warming, it still causes acidification of the oceans, independent of temperature.
That planetary science provides glimpses of what excessive amounts of heat trapping gases can do the temperature of the planet when other factors are accounted for, ie Venus vs Mars.
That for whatever reason the planet is in a warming phase with massive losses to the cryosphere.
That there are powerful political and economic forces that impinge on what otherwise would be a scientific argument, with various agenda (both sides).
My opinion? Why gamble? Even if the science is misinformed, shaky, or in flux, why not act in the interests of what might be helpful. Maybe others with different backgrounds have strikingly divergent views from mine, but in health care we often provide remedies in the hopes that they may help. There are compelling arguments from a variety of sources who suggest, including Bush, that we are addicted to oil, and as a consequence, the world is subject to many destabilizing forces. And even if through some magical alchemical process we could turn complex hydrocarbons into heat, water and CO2, is this the route we want to take? I makes me nervous gambling on the notion that if we see no obvious and immediate harm with the present course, that we should go full tilt ahead. In other words, if the earth is heating up, shouldn't we be concerned with measures that might slow the cooling, even if not a proven cause. I say err on the side of caution.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...wouldn't that be a gamble baraka?
Sure, but, like I said in my post, I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Look, the science here is extremely complicated. The global climate is one of the most complex physics problems known. The number of variables involved is immense and our ability to measure many of these variables is limited. The issue has been 'politicized' to an obscene degree.
Because of the complexity of the climate it is likely that no one will ever be able to predict the global climate with high degrees of accuracy and precision for any span of time long enough to have implications on global warming.
Since we can't solve the problem from pure theory, we have to observe and record the climate over time. Like many physics problems, climate exhibits oscillatory behavior. It's commonly known that temperature (among other things) oscillates on a day to day and season to season basis. But we know little about the long term oscillations of the global climate. Unfortunately, we have not had thorough and precise records of the climate for more than a few hundred years (at most). So we know nothing about climate oscillations that cycle on time scales of thousands of years. All this to say that we have no way of knowing if the recent rise in temperature is primarily due to some natural long term oscillation in temperature or if it is the result of human behavior.
That said, I think it's quite plausible that humans are partially responsible for Global Warming, but who knows. I say erring on the side of caution is the less risky 'gamble' and the more logical approach, unless it, of course, it effects your bottom line.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
What we are doing is pumping billions and billions of tons of material into the air... it's not like the freon thing was anywhere near as bad volume wise and that tore us a big fat hole in our own asses...
Ever fart under a blanket? Imagine living in that... all the time...we essentially are from a conceptual perspective...
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
a safe fuel has been discovered and we could be mining it in a few years. several countries are trying to get to it first. the equipment is currently being tested and people trained. the fuel is helium3 which only exists on earth in old nuclear weapons being disassembled. however; there's enough on the moon to power the world for 1000 years.
Which caution??? I'm concerned because you seem to only see caution in lowering emissions. Do you not see caution on the opposite side as well?
Absolutely!
Then how is acting on such "predictions" cautious???
Bottom lines are about more than just dollars, baraka. Things like life expectancy and literacy rates are arguably more strongly correlated with emissions than are temperatures.
ffg, please for my edification and perhaps of others, is what exactly are you fearful of? I honestly do not know what your point is. That mankind is gonna recklessly endanger the species by making a conservative choice? Maybe if I had better understanding of what consequences you envision by assuming GW is real and basing some policy on this assumption, I might be more sympathetic and understanding of your position. Also, can you clarify your last point?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
it has to do with our eliptical orbit. we should be going into a cooling period now. we're moving to the "back side" of our orbit and things should be getting colder. when we get to the orbit where we are coming closer to the sun; we'll fry because of the damage we've done.
anyway; this eliptical orbit is the explanation for the natural heating and cooling of the earth/climate.
My concern is this: human beings emit carbon dioxide for a reason. We aren't doing it for shits and giggles. We aren't doing it because we're evil. We aren't doing it because its cheap. So, when you forcibly lower emissions, you will affect that reason. You will increase its costs, and you will threaten its purposes.
The reason we emit carbon dioxide is, primarily, for energy. Energy is the central driver of civilization, baraka. And absent developed alternatives, you will be threatening the core of civilization. So I'm not too big on the "caution" argument coming from those who are prepared to use force against that which makes this entire discussion possible.
Well that was simple enough.
What I don't understand with sceptics is this :
if human actions are not responsible for global warming, what do you recon the disturbance we induce in the natural balance has for effect? Because we disturb natural equilibrium, by over consumption (fish, trees and gaz). So what is the consequence?
And why is nobody speaking of the 0,1% of the world's GDP that would already help? Is it to high of a cost to even try?
then why not work on solutions to have energy with less emitions? It's basically the conclusion the experts came with.
Be default? No. When consistent with life and happiness? Of course.
First, give me a break on the 'force' issue. Second, I am not suggesting completely wiping out one way without 'developed' alternatives. 'Threatening the core of civilization'? I thought you were above the 'doom and gloom' approach. You are on shaker ground here than the 'doom and gloom' environmentalist approach. At least they have some 'patchy' science to back their claims.
It is important to note that without global warming in the picture, there are far, far more critical air pollution problems in the world today. Global warming/carbon dioxide isn't the reason why Chinese have to wear masks in public to breathe and doesn't cause the smog that coats and dissolves our cities. Air pollution is killing people right now. I somewhat feel that politicizing global warming takes away from the far more critical air pollution problems in the world today.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EH28Ad01.html
I say, encourage responsible environmental practices, absolutely, but take the hype for what it is... hype. Can't we agree to reduce pollution without polluting the science? Shouldn't we be agreeing on ways to clean up the environment?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
we're seeing the effects now. warming when we should be cooling. yes; we did this to ourselves. the simplist answer would be a meteor strike. we would lose a lot of life but the earth would be able to heal itself. the pollutants would be trapped in the polar ice as it has since the world began; cleaning the air and rebuilding our ice cover. our ice cover is the earths fail-safe system. ice reflects heat back into space. earth and water absorb heat.
helium3 has been discovered on the moon and it is an emmision free fuel. bush's plan is in motion to have robots on the moon by the end of 2008. space stations are already built (similar to submarines) and men are in training and testing to see the long term effects of living in a deadly enviornment and also training to work in the space suits.
Do you think I come to my conclusions by 'blind default'? Personally, I think I've looked at this issue from both perspectives, considered the ramifications of both, identified the hype from both sides and have come to a reasonable conclusion (for a non-climatologist). I'm not suggesting an immediate change in practice or policy, but common sense approaches, taking in all the varying factors.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
animals emit CO2 for a reason; to provide it to plants. the problem here is that we started emitting too much CO2 and we cut down the trees that breathe in the CO2 and breathe out O2. what we didn't cut down we burned with acid rain.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
but nobody will admitt that bush's plan to harvest helium3 would solve the problem.
*breathes a sigh of relief*
Thank you surferdude. The issue has many facets and is complicated, both in the science and the approaches. There is reason to be concerned, but I find the politicizing of the issue and the need for 'press' for some scientists only turns people away from a very pressing issue. The misinformation hurts the 'cause', I think. The most recent bit of two 'scientists' trying to make a name for themselves was the recent '60 minutes' segment where two unknown researchers came forward with the devastating news that there was a 50% drop in the penguin population.
What they FAILED to mention was that this happened ONE TIME IN THE 1970's and HAS NEVER HAPPENED again, and that this was a fluke in a normal cycle and that the next cycle was normal and has been normal ever since and that the penguin population stabilized 30 years ago and has been increasing ever since.
I think incidents like the one above hurts any progress and is a determent to advancing solutions.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'll give you break on the "force" issue the instant you say you won't forcibly impose solutions on others. You can't just erase the nature of a behavior by ignoring it.
Second, I'm not trying to suggest "doom and gloom". A complete, forced elimination of industrial carbon emissions will not kill off humanity. It will simply undo nearly everything humanity has gained from the processes behind those emissions. Furthermore, a partial elimination will not undo all those things. It will, however, be a debt against them that must be paid in equal part. These are the inescapable facts of core economic theory, and you cannot erase them by ignoring them either.
Of course!
Pollution is not a disease. Pollution is the symptom of short-sighted production and foolish consumption. Those are the roots of the problem. So, you can attack producers, or you can shoot the consumers, or you could simply get out of the way of the far-sighted producers and the wise consumers and then watch the others follow.
Your position is obviously much more honest and thoughtful than most on this issue, and I'm not accusing you of coming to conclusions by "blind default". However, I am concerned when you ask a question like this:
"Minus the complicated science and the exaggerated 'predictions of doom', do you feel cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution behooves us?"
That question is still completely absent of purpose and, despite the caveat at the beginning, echoes the philosophies of environmentalist and Catholic dogmas regarding man's role as Earth-steward. Man is not Nature's employee. Nature is Man's employee, by her design.